Kimberly Moore

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kimberly Moore
Image of Kimberly Moore

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Tenure

2006 - Present

Years in position

18

Education

Bachelor's

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990

Graduate

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991

Law

Georgetown University Law Center, 1994

Personal
Birthplace
Baltimore, Md.

float:right;
border:1px solid #FFB81F;
background-color: white;
width: 250px;
font-size: .9em;
margin-bottom:0px;

} .infobox p { margin-bottom: 0; } .widget-row { display: inline-block; width: 100%; margin-top: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .widget-row.heading { font-size: 1.2em; } .widget-row.value-only { text-align: center; background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.value-only.white { background-color: #f9f9f9; } .widget-row.value-only.black { background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget-row.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Republican { background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Independent, .widget-row.Nonpartisan, .widget-row.Constitution { background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Libertarian { background-color: #f9d334; color: black; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Green { background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-key { width: 43%; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; } .widget-value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; word-wrap: break-word; } .widget-img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; }

Kimberly Ann Moore is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She joined the court in 2006 after being nominated by President George W. Bush (R). On May 22, 2021, Moore became chief judge of the court.[1][2]

Early life and education

Born in Baltimore, Maryland, Moore graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology with her undergraduate degree in 1990 and her master's degree in 1991. Moore received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994.[2]

Professional career

Judicial career

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Kimberly Moore
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 110 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: May 18, 2006
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: June 28, 2006
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: July 27, 2006 
ApprovedAConfirmed: September 5, 2006
ApprovedAVote: 92-0

Moore was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 18, 2006, to a seat vacated by Raymond Clevenger. The American Bar Association rated Moore as Unanimously Qualified for the nomination.[3] Hearings on Moore's nomination were held in the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 28, 2006, and her nomination was reported by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), on July 27, 2006. Moore was confirmed by the Senate on September 5, 2006, by a vote of 92-0. She received her commission on September 8, 2006.[4][5]

Noteworthy cases

Federal appeals court finds PTAB structure unconstitutional, determines APJs to be inferior officers (2019)

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 31, 2019, held in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al. that the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.[6][7]

Judges Kimberly Moore, Raymond Chen, and Jimmie V. Reyna identified a structural flaw in the PTAB's statutory scheme for appointing its administrative patent judges (APJs). Under the faulty system, the United States secretary of commerce appointed APJs. Once appointed, APJs enjoyed for-cause removal protections that only permitted removal by the secretary or the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “such cause as will promote efficiency of the service.”[6][7]

The judges held that APJs exercise significant authority that qualifies them as principal, rather than inferior, officers. As such, APJs must be directly appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments Clause.[6][7]

Instead of changing the method of appointing APJs, however, the court cited precedent set forth in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to propose removing APJs’ for-cause removal protections in order to classify them as inferior officers. Without protections against removal, the judges stated that APJs would be considered inferior officers subject to at-will removal by the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.[6][7]

“We believe that this, the narrowest revision to the scheme intended by Congress for reconsideration of patent rights, is the proper course of action and the action Congress would have undertaken,” wrote Moore.[6]

The court’s decision could result in the rehearing of 50 to 70 cases before the board.[6]

SCOTUS reverses Federal Circuit on venue shopping in patent cases (2017)
See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods)

On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft, an appeal of a judgment of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Kimberly Moore wrote the opinion of the panel. Pursuant to a patent infringement suit filed by Kraft Foods in a Delaware federal district court, TC Heartland filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, when that motion was denied, to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, a jurisdiction in which TC Heartland is incorporated. TC Heartland argued that 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), which requires that patent infringement lawsuits must be litigated in the defendant's state of incorporation, mandated removal of the lawsuit to Indiana. The district court in Delaware disagreed, holding that Congressional amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) broadened the reach of acceptable venues for patent infringement cases. On appeal, TC Heartland sought an order to force removal to the Southern District of Indiana, but Judge Moore, writing for a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, denied TC Heartland's motion, holding that the district court correctly interpreted §1391(c) in accordance with the circuit court's governing precedents.

In his opinion for a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed the Federal Circuit panel. He wrote,[8]

“

The patent venue statute, 28 U. S. C. §1400(b), provides that '[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.' In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., ... this Court concluded that for purposes of §1400(b) a domestic corporation 'resides' only in its State of incorporation. In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the argument that §1400(b) incorporates the broader definition of corporate 'residence' contained in the general venue statute, 28 U. S. C. §1391(c). ... Congress has not amended §1400(b) since this Court construed it in Fourco, but it has amended §1391 twice. Section 1391 now provides that, '[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law' and '[f]or all venue purposes,' a corporation 'shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.' ... The issue in this case is whether that definition supplants the definition announced in Fourco and allows a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against a corporation in any district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. We conclude that the amendments to §1391 did not modify the meaning of §1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco. We therefore hold that a domestic corporation 'resides' only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.[9]

”

See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ Thomson Reuters Westlaw Today, "IN BRIEF: Judge Kimberly Moore to take over as Fed. Cir. chief," April 21, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Judicial Center, "Moore, Kimberly Ann," accessed May 24, 2021
  3. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 109th Congress," accessed May 24, 2016
  4. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1594 - Kimberly Ann Moore - The Judiciary," accessed May 24, 2016
  5. ↑ The Library of Congress, "Search Presidential Nominations - Search term PN1594-109," accessed October 29, 2015
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Reuters, "U.S. patent board is unconstitutional, but problem can be fixed: appeals court," October 31, 2019
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc et al," October 31, 2019
  8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, decided May 22, 2017
  9. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-Present		 Succeeded by
-


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kimberly_Moore&oldid=9744310"